About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Allianz SE v. Fernando Notario Britez / Oneandone, Private Registration

Case No. D2013-0279

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Allianz SE of Munich, Germany, represented internally

The Respondent is Fernando Notario Britez / Oneandone Private Registration of Pueblo, Colorado, United States of America and Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America, respectively.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <allianz-insurances.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the ”Center”) on February 8, 2013. On February 8, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 11, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 12, 2013 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 12, 2013.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 15, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 7, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 11, 2013

The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 15, 2013. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark ALLIANZ, registered worldwide, for example in the European Union under numbers 000013656 (registered on July 22, 2002) and 002981298 (registered on April 5, 2004). The disputed domain name was registered on October 23, 2012.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is one of the oldest and largest international insurance and financial services groups in the world. The first company of the present group was founded in 1890. Currently, the group employs some 142,000 employees worldwide and has approximately 78 million customers in over 70 countries.

The trademark ALLIANZ is a distinctive and well-known trademark that has been used by the Complainant for well over 100 years. It has been registered worldwide. The brand's value has been estimated to be USD 5,345 million in 2011. Its fame has been confirmed by different authorities, including the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (“OHIM”).

Internet users will recognize the well-known trademark of the Complainant in the disputed domain name. The descriptor "insurances" confirms this recognition because it relates to the Complainant's core business, namely insurance services.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark ALLIANZ. The Respondent is also not commonly known by the name.

The disputed domain name has been used in connection with a fraud-scheme, in which an email sent from the address […]@allianz-insurances.com in relation to the purchase of used cars has claimed that the transport of the cars has been insured by "Allianz Insurance LLC", a firm that does not exist.

The Respondent has tried to pass itself off as the Complainant or an affiliate of the Complainant and intends to make illegitimate profits by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has registered the trademark ALLIANZ in many countries and in view of the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it clearly is a well-known trademark in the insurance and financial services industries.

The disputed domain name included the Complainant's trademark in its entirety and combines it with the word "insurances", a common English word devoid of any distinctive character in relation to the Complainant's services. Such use of a descriptive or generic word in connection with a well-known trademark is bound to enhance the association of the disputed domain name with the well-known trademark.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The consensus view among UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or interests. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that it has not authorized the use of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name. The Respondent has chosen not to reply to these contentions.

Therefore the Panel finds under the circumstances mentioned above that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name is used in connection with fraudulent activities, where online buyers of used cars are led to believe that the Complainant has insured the transport of the cars. A similar scheme was recently considered by the UDRP panel in Allianz SE v. Omar Guerrero / 1&1 Internet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2012-2307, to be evidence of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name in that case, <allianz-insurer.com>.

The Panel notes the Complainant's contention that the disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant's legitimate website, thereby enhancing the association between the Complainant and the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is clearly used to create an incorrect association with the Complainant to mislead Internet users in order to benefit from the Complainant's trademark. Such activity, which may also be against respective laws, is in itself evidence of the Respondent's illegitimate interests.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <allianz-insurances.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 25, 2013